|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 10, 2005 15:33:05 GMT -5
hey everyone
i have a problem...i simply cannot get into miyazaki. i almost feel like i am going insane sometimes, because everyone else gushes about this guys films, and they always leave me disappointed...
this isn't the only occasion i feel this way...if you've read my other posts, you'll know i had a similar, if stronger, reax to "chicago" (bbmmmbbbbbggggaaaAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!HATEHATEHATEHATEHATEHATEHATEHATE)
and the films of kevin smith, which i generally find so poor i simply walk out...not due to offensive content but due to weak filmmaking (as a film student and longtime wannabe filmmaker, this probably explains my reax to amateurish style...)
miyazaki, however, simpy is the most puzzling. i want to like them. i watch them over and over. i try and give them chances, hoping that my mood or something was just off the LAST time i sat through it...
at any rate, i emailed my friend dave, who is a poster on this board, and asked if he could maybe shed some light on some questions i had. dave has been extraordinarily busy and hasnt had a chance to respond completely (understandably...it s a long email), but i thought, given the level of thoughtful debate exhibited here, that some answers might be forthcoming...so i will post the email here, and anyone who wants should feel free to respond...
just keep in mind, far from attacking either miyazaki or his fans, i realy want to understand...why dont these things that bother me at least cause some reaction from everyone else. if you have an answer, or a suggestion or anything, please let me know, and ill be more than willing to watch them again...
i apologize for the length of this post, as it is already long and will contain a long email msg copied at the end, BUT i realy want to get some answers here, so if you can help feel free.
the msg is as follows...
i just watched spirited away again. if youll recall, i was less than blown away the first time i saw it. i was hoping, knowing that, i would really enjoy it a second time through...
and honestly, my same reservations are still there...so i am wondering if you noticed these things, or if they occurred to you at all, of if anyone else seemed to even notice these things and i am completely uptight, or what...
first off, the thing i noticed, when thinking back, was that people seemed to act in seemingly illogocal ways, and/or do not do things they are specifically told to do.
ie, she is told, by this haku guys when she first gets there, to go to the boiler room and ask for a job. he will try and trick her into leaving, or tell her he has no jobs, but she must not back down and keep asking.
so, she goes in, asks him for a job a couple times, thn gets caught up with those soot things and kind of forgets. finally, that other lady shows up, and the boiler room guy tells her that she will ave to talk to yakuba for a job. she leaves and later, goes to yakuba (yubaba? i cant remember), where she does the "ask until she gets a job" tactic.
first, she completely ignored the advice. the boiler room guy does exactly what she is told he will, and after a couple attempts, she buys it and stops asking...then later, uses the technique on the wiotch, with no evidence or suggestion that it will work on her at all...this kind of thing makes me think, wait, why is she doing this?
later, after she pulls the big bicycle mess out of that muddy spirit, the witch is happy b/c they are now going to be rich...well, how, exactly, is this going to happen? is he going to keep coming back and make them rich? i wonder, sinmce i dont think he did anything to suggest they will be rich at any point, so in my mind this needs at least some suggestion...i guess i am cynical enough to question things characters say, or, in a fantasy movie, at least wonder how it will take its form.
fantasy, i think, is really about creating a world, and the rules for that world. the numerous inconsistencies just really caused me to question and keep from getting engrossed. ie, what is the power of darkness? in the beginning, the place seemed abandoned during the daylight. aftershe is inside the bathouse, dat and night seem to make no difference on the activities of spirits, or, if anything, they seem to have a normal schedule, sleeping at night, about at day. why? are we to assume that the house is always there, and until you are there when the night falls you cant see them? does crossing the bridge do it? sorry, but this needs explanation.
i am not really certain how you put together that the friend of yours who is a dragon that you are riding on is, in fact, a river, even if you have ridden him in water...this seems like a stretch, esp since no other character in the film was the spirit of an inanimate object.
no face...are we to assume that, once he starts eating, he becomes this ravenous jerk, and aquires the ability to speak in the voice of whoever he eats? he wants sen. why? he is angrily chasing her, then is her friend at the train. how does this work? each of these, and a bunch of others, caused me to stop and ask why, and it took me out of the movie. i can go along w/even the most out there premise, as long as it is a consistently logical place. i just keep finding things that give me pause.
another thing, and this is obviously pewrsonal, is the way things look. there are always unnecessary tendrils and lumps...ie, the tendrils/whiskers on the face of the dragon. what purpose can these serve? i find them aesthetically unpleasant, and would really want them to serve a purpose, an obvious one, to justify their existence. ditto the "moustache" on the radish spirit. the shape of the spirits, big, fat lumps with masks, seems ungainly and visually unwieldly. esp when combined with their tiny arms. the whole emphasis on detail is good, but the details are not things i want to see...ie, the elongated pores on the end of the witch's nose. sure, its impressive that you went to that trouble, but i dont really want to see that.
and most disappointing, for me, is the visual style. i dont know what it is (generally a more lumpy, organic visual style, muted color palette, etc) but i just dont think, as a general rule it looks that great. the train is really the only truly impressive looking scene.
and the music. mostly, it strikes me as after school special piano music, and other than a couple scenes, i really found it unpleasant and sort of , well, i dont know. it just harkens back to the worst kind of 70s pop culture, and that actually fills my stomach with a dread...i think just because, growing up, that music was synonymous with boredom...
anyway, i just had these reservations, and had the same things on two viewings, and in checking reviews, no one else seems to even notice these things, or care. in some ways, specifically the visual aspects, people seem to think this a lot different than what i thought...in my opinion,visual style is this films weakest aspect, and in most anime, it is about the only thing worth watching.
anyway, i just wanted to see if you had any of these same thougts, or if youve heard these things before, and how someone would respond to these. again, its not that i think its bad. i actually think its pretty good. i dont hate it. i do occasionally get in the mood for something like this, and i am going to watch his other films, so im not turned off by the film. but, honestly, it gets such glowing eviews. some claim its almost a perfect film, and i just see it as a very flawed film. if reviews acknowledged these things, i would prob not be so confused.
anyway, just my 2 cents. I just watched it, and i felt compelled to write about it, so let me know what you think. granted, some of these things are just opinions, and as such rest solely with my brain, but you can at least comment on maybe show me where youre coming from on those things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 11, 2005 16:19:58 GMT -5
Okay, this answer is going to be in several parts because I can't seem to get it to all post as one.  she is told, by this haku guys when she first gets there, to go to the boiler room and ask for a job. he will try and trick her into leaving, or tell her he has no jobs, but she must not back down and keep asking. so, she goes in, asks him for a job a couple times, thn gets caught up with those soot things and kind of forgets. finally, that other lady shows up, and the boiler room guy tells her that she will ave to talk to yakuba for a job. she leaves and later, goes to yakuba (yubaba? i cant remember), where she does the "ask until she gets a job" tactic. first, she completely ignored the advice. the boiler room guy does exactly what she is told he will, and after a couple attempts, she buys it and stops asking...then later, uses the technique on the wiotch, with no evidence or suggestion that it will work on her at all...this kind of thing makes me think, wait, why is she doing this? Hmmm...to be honest, Stace, this didn't bother me at all. She goes to the boiler man, asks him a few times, and then gets caught up with the soot things. When the boiler man sees her with the soot things, he takes pitty on her and tries to help her out. (It really isn't his call to give someone a job, it's Yababa's, but he's done what he could do.) When she goes to see Yababa, she then keeps asking because the last thing she was told was, "You need a job to stay here with your parents. Keep asking until you get a job." So she does. Now Haku could have said, "Go into the bath house and go up to Yababa and ask for a job, but he knew she'd never make it. By sending her in the back way, he knew the boiler man would give her an "in" that would help get her where she needed to go.  |
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 11, 2005 17:24:56 GMT -5
later, after she pulls the big bicycle mess out of that muddy spirit, the witch is happy b/c they are now going to be rich...well, how, exactly, is this going to happen? is he going to keep coming back and make them rich? i wonder, sinmce i dont think he did anything to suggest they will be rich at any point, so in my mind this needs at least some suggestion...i guess i am cynical enough to question things characters say, or, in a fantasy movie, at least wonder how it will take its form. Perhaps this has something to do with Japanese culture/mysticism that we don't understand. My impression was that this River Spirit was an important spirit (and BTW, in the original Japanese, they're not spirits, they're gods). If they did a good job cleaning and serving him, he would tell all his friends and they would have more clients. More clients means more money. To me, it was as simple as that. fantasy, i think, is really about creating a world, and the rules for that world. the numerous inconsistencies just really caused me to question and keep from getting engrossed. ie, what is the power of darkness? in the beginning, the place seemed abandoned during the daylight. aftershe is inside the bathouse, dat and night seem to make no difference on the activities of spirits, or, if anything, they seem to have a normal schedule, sleeping at night, about at day. why? are we to assume that the house is always there, and until you are there when the night falls you cant see them? does crossing the bridge do it? sorry, but this needs explanation. I agree with you about "fantasy is about creating a world and giving you the rules." This is why I don't read a lot of Fantasy. I get bogged down in all the set-up. Give me a story where we can start right in. Anyway, the thing here is that I get the sense that we are seeing something that is based on existing Japanese lore. Since not all of us are familiar with Japanese mythology and religious beliefs, I can see where you could be confused. i am not really certain how you put together that the friend of yours who is a dragon that you are riding on is, in fact, a river, even if you have ridden him in water...this seems like a stretch, esp since no other character in the film was the spirit of an inanimate object. As you so nicely pointed out on another thread, Asian horror/sci-fi/fantasy has a thing with life forces. I think it again harks back to mythos and religious beliefs that we are ignorant of but Rodan gave his lifeforce for Godzilla, Godzilla's lifeforce resurrected Little Godzilla, Battra and Gamera get their powers from the Earth's Lifeforce or spirit or what-have-you. This is another example. When she was floating along in the river, she sensed Haku's lifeforce. When she was on the dragon, she had the same perception. no face...are we to assume that, once he starts eating, he becomes this ravenous jerk, and aquires the ability to speak in the voice of whoever he eats? he wants sen. why? he is angrily chasing her, then is her friend at the train. how does this work? each of these, and a bunch of others, caused me to stop and ask why, and it took me out of the movie. i can go along w/even the most out there premise, as long as it is a consistently logical place. i just keep finding things that give me pause. You're right, No-face was a jerk when he ate those people and all the food and what-not. The bottom line, however, is that he liked Sen and wanted to help Sen. That's why he gave her the bath tickets. He wanted to give her gold because he saw how happy it made everyone after the river spirit left. When he coughed up the other people, he was no longer a jerk, and he still wanted to help Sen. Remember, Sen didn't see or experience a lot of the bad stuff No-face did. And there was talk of him "behaving himself" as he approached them on the train, but he did help her before and she was grateful to him for that. another thing, and this is obviously pewrsonal, is the way things look. there are always unnecessary tendrils and lumps...ie, the tendrils/whiskers on the face of the dragon. what purpose can these serve? i find them aesthetically unpleasant, and would really want them to serve a purpose, an obvious one, to justify their existence. ditto the "moustache" on the radish spirit. the shape of the spirits, big, fat lumps with masks, seems ungainly and visually unwieldly. esp when combined with their tiny arms. the whole emphasis on detail is good, but the details are not things i want to see...ie, the elongated pores on the end of the witch's nose. sure, its impressive that you went to that trouble, but i dont really want to see that.  There are some Anime magazines that have a rating for "Tentacle Sex". Seriously, this is also an Asian cultural thing. If you look at paintings or statues of dragons, they have whiskers and scales. Foo Dogs have whiskers, big mouths, bulky bodies. It's just they style. and most disappointing, for me, is the visual style. i dont know what it is (generally a more lumpy, organic visual style, muted color palette, etc) but i just dont think, as a general rule it looks that great. the train is really the only truly impressive looking scene. The train is impressive. But I think the level of detail in the bath house is impressive. Same with the town. and the music. mostly, it strikes me as after school special piano music, and other than a couple scenes, i really found it unpleasant and sort of , well, i dont know. it just harkens back to the worst kind of 70s pop culture, and that actually fills my stomach with a dread...i think just because, growing up, that music was synonymous with boredom... Musical taste is, of course, a personal thing. There are people out there who love Bruce Springsteen. Absolutely worship the guy. I'm not one of them and neither are you. I happen to love the music for Spirited Away. In fact, I was just listening to it today over lunch. I find it very relaxing and inspiring. But that's my taste. I can respect that you find it less than adaquate. I love the J-Pop stuff from Perfect Blue. Dave hates it with a passion. It's all subjective. anyway, i just had these reservations, and had the same things on two viewings, and in checking reviews, no one else seems to even notice these things, or care. in some ways, specifically the visual aspects, people seem to think this a lot different than what i thought...in my opinion,visual style is this films weakest aspect, and in most anime, it is about the only thing worth watching. I gotta say, Stace, I'm as puzzled with why you don't love the visual style as you are with why people love it. To me, the look all the films ( Kiki, Tutoro, Princess Mononoki, Howl's Moving Castle, etc.) is extraordinary! its not that i think its bad. i actually think its pretty good. i dont hate it. i do occasionally get in the mood for something like this, and i am going to watch his other films, so im not turned off by the film. but, honestly, it gets such glowing eviews. some claim its almost a perfect film, and i just see it as a very flawed film. if reviews acknowledged these things, i would prob not be so confused. Well, I don't know about a "perfect film," but I do love it so. As I said, I think much of the confusion you experience is as an outsider to Japanese culture. The same thing happens sometimes in a J-horror film. Someone will do something and the other characters accept it as if it is a normal practice to do such a thing, but I don't know that. I hope my answers might alleviate some of your concerns. And, most of all, I hope you will enjoy the man's other works. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 13, 2005 6:36:27 GMT -5
>Hmmm...to be honest, Stace, this didn't bother me at all. She goes to the boiler man, asks him a few times, and then gets caught up with the soot things. When the boiler man sees her with the soot things, he takes pitty on her and tries to help her out. (It really isn't his call to give someone a job, it's Yababa's, but he's done what he could do.) When she goes to see Yababa, she then keeps asking because the last thing she was told was, "You need a job to stay here with your parents. Keep asking until you get a job." So she does. Now Haku could have said, "Go into the bath house and go up to Yababa and ask for a job, but he knew she'd never make it. By sending her in the back way, he knew the boiler man would give her an "in" that would help get her where she needed to go. < well, i think, actually, haku tells her, specifically, NOT to sk yubaba. that only the boiler man could help her, and specifically NOT to ask yubaba... i think, at least, that was my recollection. i can takes this kind of thing in a film. usually, it would mean that haku was unreliable, that you couldnt trust what he says, necessarily. since this isnt the case, apparently, it only makes me think that there is little concern for consistency in the story. >Perhaps this has something to do with Japanese culture/mysticism that we don't understand. My impression was that this River Spirit was an important spirit (and BTW, in the original Japanese, they're not spirits, they're gods). If they did a good job cleaning and serving him, he would tell all his friends and they would have more clients. More clients means more money. To me, it was as simple as that.< why him, though? arent all the spirits important and powerful? i think she does mention the radish spirit is important, or someone does. for me, there needs to be some explanation why this particular spirit was so important. its not like it would take much of an explanation, but leaving it unexplained seems like something was left out...a problem, btw, that you find in a lot of fairytales. will write more later, but again, i think i would be more willing to understand/forgive these things if the universal reaction was not complete overwhelming love of the films. i can understand that, but they just seem to ignore these things, which i consider very obvious and clear problems, and if someone at least said "look, this is illogical, and that doesn seem to work, but just go with it" maybe id understand it a bit more. |
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 13, 2005 18:09:08 GMT -5
My take, in brief, is that this is not fantasy in the sense of here are the rules (or here is your quest), and now we watch you alternately follow and not follow the rules, with the expected consequences following and causing adventure. I'm with Mike on this one - I skip fantasy for this very structure. It's the quest structure. First go here and assuage the minotaur, then travel the path of dinge on a virgin steed - *only* a virgin steed! - where you will find the sacred eye of kismet, and then you will meet the keeper of dreams at the top of her mountain . . . blah, blah, blah. This is why Harry Potter 2 sucked so bad, worse then the first one. It was this one step at a time plodding plot.
Also, this is not based on any specific lore, just as Alice in Wonderland wasn't in the west. Miyazaki made it up. We're not bringing anything less to the table than the folks on his home team do when they see it. I'm not sure why the assumption of cultural differences comes up so much on this board. It sounds like an excuse in the Japanese Horror debates. Maybe it's the most respectful assumption, to say, in the face of a thing from another culture, "I didn't get it, but it's probably due to my ignorance of your ways," but I have my doubts, and don't leap to that so quickly. It's kind of presumptuous, really. What if folks in China found Twin Peaks mystifying, and assumed that it's because of cultural differences? It assumes a certain representative normalcy to the thing evaluated, and clearly Twin Peaks doesn't represent American culture. That's why the thing works! There's not a thing about Spirited Away that left me mystified, and I couldn't care less about Japanese culture. It's just not my things, cultures in general, really.
Also, he's operating from a child's point of view. When you're ten, a lot of things make sense, but not completely. You know that things are, but not so often why they are so. Also, in movies there are givens. If someone refers to an unmet, offscreen character as a person of importance, we accept it. We don't ask the film to stop and explain exactly who this person is, give us the baseball card stats on him. I'm not trying to mock, Stace, I'm just illustrating a thing - we really don't do it. Miyazaki expects us to bring this with us, knowing that we've got a stranger in a strange land story, so some things we'll have to take on face value, such as why one spirit is a bigwig, and others are just the rabble.
Miyazaki's films also allow for the characters to be people in ways most fantasy doesn't, two ways. One is the unreliability thing, not in the sense of a pass/fail grade for a character's trust, but in the sense that the characters aren't omniscient, and can make mistakes. Haku has an image in his head of how things will go if Sen asks Octoarm for a job. It doesn't occur to him that the fuzzballs will make their presence known, nor that Sen would interact with them in a way which would warm the Octoguy's attitude toward her. He gives advice based on what he expects to happen, not what he knows will happen. In most fantasies, people are omniscient about their world, or at least their areas of specialty in it.
I can imagine a follow up chat about the day going like this:
H: Did things go as I said they would?
S: At first. I went to the army guy, but then these fuzzy things started mucking about my feet. I was nice to them, and army and I sort of lost our train of conversation. Before I knew it, he'd sent me to Yubabba.
H: Ouch, I bet that was ugly.
S: Only sort of. I mean at first I thought I'd messed up, because you said not to deal with her -
H: Yeah, well she swallowed my soul, or something - I didn't want you in the same boat.
S: I appreciate you trying to look out for me, really, but nevertheless, I got stuck in the situation.
H: Looks like you made the best of it!
S: Sure. I mean, she swallowed part of my soul or something too, but I'll just have to work that out. In the mean time, I get to stay, I'm gainfully employed, and ultimately that was our goal.
H: Sure. Well, nicely done. I'm surprised, really. Oh, and I'm a river.
Also, Sen as a person - that affects how things will work out in a given conversation. People affect plans. In Sen's case, who she is works for her - she tends to be humble, and willing to do unpleasant things. She warms people up to her and earns respect. That also changes how things could go. In Miyazaki's later films, life is unpredictable in these ways, and there are no bad guys, just differing goals, or even mere misunderstandings. Or sometimes the bad guys are just put up with until they cease to be problems (Witch o' Waste in Howl's).
There are also Maguffinish things, like the leads in Glengarry Glenn Ross. The important spirit - he's just an important spirit. The bathhouse folks don't initially know who he is, and so treat him somewhat badly. Sen doesn't care, she just treats everyone as well as she can, and in this case it pays off. Why is he important? A reason could be made up, but its unnecessary, like the question "what is in those leads" is unnecessary to [(Glen)2 garry n] Ross.
I think we're to do as Mike did, suppose what the outcomes could be (big payback, talk up the place to friends) if we need to, and let it go at that. His identity isn't important.
Same with the no face guy. He likes Sen because she did him a good turn, invited him into the place. For reasons unexplained, going into the bath house is bad for him, makes him crazy. Coming back out restores him to humility. That was evident to me. Again, the movie could have had the John Ratzenberger voiced frog guy say, "Oh, he's a Kooza!" and everyone else nod knowingly, all muttering that Kozaas are allergic to bathhouses, but that's just a label for a remaining mystery (*why* are bathhouses bad for Koozas), and all that's important is *that* it is so, not why.
I made up the word Kooza.
Oh, and re 'spirit' vs. 'god', this bugged me in Princess Mononke. God is the translation, a word-to-word thing, spirit the transliteration, word to a word the means the same. Neil Gaiman went for the more literal 'god', when the transliteration 'spirit' would have been more appropriate. The word god doesn't mean, in English, anything that would make its use in the context of these films appropriate. Even atheists, who disagree on His existence, and agnostics, who wouldn't agree on the exact identity or qualities of god, or a god, know that the word means, in an essential sense, at the very least, *the* creator, not just a powerful being. Spirit is correct.
I think that unlike other fantasy forms, where you kind of try to figure things out and follow along, in a Miyazaki film, you let a lot of it wash over you. You go with it, like the character Sen, insecure and scared in the beginning, is learning to do.
The bridge is the looking glass. Once over it, that done at the right time of day, of course, Sen is simply in another realm, with its own days and nights.
Haku is really a river? That was just dumb. Culture schmulture, it came right out of Miyazaki's backside. i tolerate it the way I tolerate the songs in 1776 - I'm just used to it now.
The music hit me a little wrong the first time, right when the film started, in the same ways it hit you, Stace. Mononoke's score was so epic that I didn't want to hear pared down stuff. Anyone can do that, and most mostly do. As I got into it, I lost it in the film (which should be its goal), and have since become accustomed to it. In fact, I was so charmed by this movie the first time I saw it, that that end song, when the woman starts going "Ahh ah ah ah aaah ah-ah-ah-ah", was so treacly and over the top singsongy that I laughed - not at it, but out of delight. I had been coaxed into a place where that actually worked.
The train is one of the lovelies scenes in cinema.
|
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 14, 2005 23:37:43 GMT -5
well, you know, i am not here to necessarily defend my opinion. clearly i am in the minority here. the probl;em is that i am a guy who usu does get when i am supposed to let plot points slide. everythgig does not have to be expl;ained to me.
i think what bothers me is when something is said, very specifically ( go talk to the boiler guy. do NOT try and talk to yababa.) then that very specific thing is ignored, and there are no consequences, and no further mention, and we are just supposed to extrapolate something (the char who told her that lies/yubaba isnt so bad/the boiler man cant be trusted. etc), but none of those things are extrapolated. i kept trying to figure out what i am supposed to be gathering from the meandering plot points, and as a result, the film didnt work for me. i got that the little girl (sen?) grew up a lot, and that her good nature saved a lot of things for the bath house, but i just have trouble when very particular things are noted, and they arent followed, and the story seems to suppose we get why...
I'm not sure why the assumption of cultural differences comes up so much on this board. It sounds like an excuse in the Japanese Horror debates. Maybe it's the most respectful assumption, to say, in the face of a thing from another culture,
well, clearly something is going on. a lot of things get lost in language translations, and it isnt really too much a stretch that youre mising something (ive mentioned how seven samrai worked for me, but it worked better when i understood everything as explained on the commentary track)...again, i dont think bad storytelling can be assumed a part of, say, the japanese people. if you are going to make the claim that, for example, the ring is dull/boring/badly acted/bad plot, etc, and it is one of japans most successful films of all time, you either have to say that the ja[anese people like bad storytelling, or they ignore it, or that there is some reason why they can accept it.it is certainly possibl;e that it is just a matter of opinion, and you dont happen to like a particular story, butif it is big, unmissable, consistent things (ie, the plots are weak/the actiong is bad/it reaches across from film to film), theni would just as soon think there is something that we dont get rather than assume a weakness on the part of an entire audience...
What if folks in China found Twin Peaks mystifying, and assumed that it's because of cultural differences? It assumes a certain representative normalcy to the thing evaluated, and clearly Twin Peaks doesn't represent American culture. That's why the thing works!
thats not a bad example...if the ring, for instance, worked in japan b/c it went so counter to what they think that they found it fascinating, then i think that would be an interesting conept...much the same way twin peaks worked here.
There's not a thing about Spirited Away that left me mystified, and I couldn't care less about Japanese culture. It's just not my things, cultures in general, really.
the feel of the film, to me, doesnt work for me in very specific ways that just feel like it could work if it were explained to me a little better than the films does. thats just a hunch, but i tend to have a good track record w/these things. as i said, i dont think miyazaki sucks. i like the films overall, its just they dont leave me completely satisfied, and i feel i missd something, and it happens from viewing to viewing, i tend to wonder...hence, my asking. in my defense, not too many people i know make an effort to like a film that didnt work for them. most simply assume the faults lie w/the filmmakers.
Also, he's operating from a child's point of view. When you're ten, a lot of things make sense, but not completely. You know that things are, but not so often why they are so. Also, in movies there are givens. If someone refers to an unmet, offscreen character as a person of importance, we accept it. We don't ask the film to stop and explain exactly who this person is, give us the baseball card stats on him. I'm not trying to mock, Stace, I'm just illustrating a thing - we really don't do it. Miyazaki expects us to bring this with us, knowing that we've got a stranger in a strange land story, so some things we'll have to take on face value, such as why one spirit is a bigwig, and others are just the rabble.
i can take these things as face value, i think. a lot of it did work for me. but very specific things didnt, and it cont9inues not to, and when no one else mentions it, i tend to wonder why. as i mentioned before, i pick up plots very quickly. i dont need a blow by blow explanation, nor do need every hole fiilled in. but what i am missing is contrary to what is said, and/or doesnt fit what im used to...and i think, maybe, soe of these are a sort of conditioning...maybe im so conditioned to hollywood storytelling that the assumptions it makes for its audience gets past m...i am more than willing to accept some responsibility.
Miyazaki's films also allow for the characters to be people in ways most fantasy doesn't, two ways. One is the unreliability thing, not in the sense of a pass/fail grade for a character's trust, but in the sense that the characters aren't omniscient, and can make mistakes. Haku has an image in his head of how things will go if Sen asks Octoarm for a job. It doesn't occur to him that the fuzzballs will make their presence known, nor that Sen would interact with them in a way which would warm the Octoguy's attitude toward her. He gives advice based on what he expects to happen, not what he knows will happen. In most fantasies, people are omniscient about their world, or at least their areas of specialty in it.
I can imagine a follow up chat about the day going like this:
H: Did things go as I said they would?
S: At first. I went to the army guy, but then these fuzzy things started mucking about my feet. I was nice to them, and army and I sort of lost our train of conversation. Before I knew it, he'd sent me to Yubabba.
H: Ouch, I bet that was ugly.
S: Only sort of. I mean at first I thought I'd messed up, because you said not to deal with her -
H: Yeah, well she swallowed my soul, or something - I didn't want you in the same boat.
S: I appreciate you trying to look out for me, really, but nevertheless, I got stuck in the situation.
H: Looks like you made the best of it!
S: Sure. I mean, she swallowed part of my soul or something too, but I'll just have to work that out. In the mean time, I get to stay, I'm gainfully employed, and ultimately that was our goal.
H: Sure. Well, nicely done. I'm surprised, really. Oh, and I'm a river.
this might have helpd the film make more sense to me, then, iof this type of conversation had taken place. but it didnt...i guess im used to inequities being at least commented on, if not explained.
The bridge is the looking glass. Once over it, that done at the right time of day, of course, Sen is simply in another realm, with its own days and nights.
ok...i can accept that...
Haku is really a river? That was just dumb. Culture schmulture, it came right out of Miyazaki's backside. i tolerate it the way I tolerate the songs in 1776 - I'm just used to it now.
well, then someone, somewhere, should, in the midst of their gushing over the film, mention that it has this kind of flaw...but no one does. all you get is how great it is, how it is nearly perfect and magical and a wonderful experience. maybe if i knew to expect some hols, it would have worked better for me.
except for the visual style. thats just a personal thing, but i just dont really like it...here, or in mononoke, the other one ive seen. maybe this will change if i dsee some of his other films, but i absolutely love the say most anime looksits the only reason i watch someof it, for example. akira, ghost in the shell, etc, are brillian to ook at. i didnt like ghimbli, so far, but that is a complete personal opinion....and indefensible, as much as it needs to be defended.
The music hit me a little wrong the first time, right when the film started, in the same ways it hit you, Stace. Mononoke's score was so epic that I didn't want to hear pared down stuff. Anyone can do that, and most mostly do. As I got into it, I lost it in the film (which should be its goal), and have since become accustomed to it. In fact, I was so charmed by this movie the first time I saw it, that that end song, when the woman starts going "Ahh ah ah ah aaah ah-ah-ah-ah", was so treacly and over the top singsongy that I laughed - not at it, but out of delight. I had been coaxed into a place where that actually worked.
hmmm...i still dont like it...again,. personal opinion.
The train is one of the lovelies scenes in cinema.[/quote]
i think it is really lovely, yes. we agree there.
|
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 14, 2005 23:38:10 GMT -5
btw, i cant get the little quote box thing top work...sorry everyone...
|
|
